Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed

What "standard" definition of speciation? Do you not know that there are two distict definitions of speciation, one morphological, the other biological, and that many serious biologists (and members of related specialties) are still debating which is correct?

For instance, morphologically, tigers and lions are quite distinct. Biologically, however, they're the same species, because they can interbreed. Some biologists, however, even go a step further with the biological definition and suggest that unless the creatures want to interbreed, then the species are distinct, and thus tigers and lions are not the same breed (except in unusual circumstances...?). But what about dogs and wolves? Or dogs and coyotes? Morphologically, distinct. Biologically, they're compatible. And as for interest, male guardian dogs will happily mate with female coyotes or female wolves if given the opportunity. So are coyotes a different species from dog or not? According to morphology, they're different species. According to both biological definitions, they're the same species.

See, species is a nebulous term, kinda like arguing about the planet-not-a-planet, Pluto. We started naming species well before we had an idea about cellular activity, but a better solution isn't so simple. What's worse, the definition of evolution depends on the definition of species, so the definition of species is its own religious war.

And, no, polyploidy does not prove evolution, although it is an interesting side show. (All your fruit fly claims, by the way, are examples of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. I am not arguing against micro-evolution in the slightest, so you can put that one away, unless you honestly believe [you religious nut, you!] that micro-evolution is the same thing as macro-evolution.) What polyploidy shows is that life is not always as simple as the one-to-one species mapping. More complex interrelationships among life forms exist than simple "perpetuate the species". And while that is kinda in the same league as "evolution", it's not the same as evolution. Is a mule the evolution of a donkey (not strictly a case of polyploidy, but the chromosomal makeup of the child differs from the parents)? You seem to think so!

And since you're making the claim that Darwin predicted DNA, please cite the actual source. If all you're doing is suggesting that Darwin predicted evolution, and then decades later DNA was discovered as the program for cellular activity, and then Darwinists took the next step of assuming that DNA would necessarily drive evolution, and that proves that Darwin predicted DNA... again, I say, Darwin is to DNA as Joseph Smith is to caffeine.



Tweet